IBM DevOps Test UI vs. Visual Studio Test Professional

IBM Rational Functional Tester is good for automating thick applications.

Incentivized

It would be well suited if we used it with Azure DevOps as we can effortlessly integrate the test cases and even stories or tasks to stay on track with our work. Those test cases can even be reused across multiple projects. Using any other third-party tools, such as Jira, can be less appropriate, as it's not a Microsoft tool, and its capabilities will be limited.

Incentivized

• An execution log in html format provides detailed information of the actions, verifications, and screenshots with timestamps.
• Quick response and good support. IBM releases frequent updates to handle customer needs and fix issues.
• A solid object inspector, extensive functional library and playback monitor.

Incentivized

• Availability of the desktop client or the web interface. The web interface being the favorite and providing a better experience.
• It enables you to write unit tests with so much ease.
• Allows the recording and repeating of manual tests
• It can be set up for collaboration.

Incentivized

• Installation or updates were not always perfect. Would have to clean previous installations or reinstall Java if there were errors.
• No or very limited support of browsers outside of Internet Explorer.
• Uses a lot of memory, can have memory issues on large tests.

Incentivized

• The user community of the Visual Studio Test product is weak. For instant problems with this product, it is necessary to quickly reach the source of the error.
• Licence fees need to be more reasonable. License prices need to be reduced so that they can easily compete with free testing tools.

Incentivized

It is very usable if you are familiar with Visual Studio to begin with. If you are new to the interface, it can be a long ramp up period for Testers not used to the GUI. There is always the web option which seems to be more intuitive for many Testers.

Incentivized

Visual Studio Test Professional is backed up by the full support of the Microsoft Corporation. That means twenty-four/seven customer support by quality, highly-trained professionals who understand every possible issue that you have experienced before. They are nice, efficient, and highly professional. I recommend them.

Incentivized

Selenium is similar to IBM Rational Functional Tester but is not as user friendly and does not support thick applications. Visual Studio Coded UI is newer so not as refined; the object inspector/management and execution log results is poor compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester.

Incentivized

The visual Studio Test tool is faster than other tools. Since the development and testing processes are in one tool, it is more profitable in terms of cost. It is more inconvenient to write a test case in DevOps.

• Speeds up and broadens the testing cycle by using machine time for regression testing.
• Frees up time for testers to focus on critical items outside the automated suite.

Incentivized

• One of the positive ROIs of Visual Studios is the fact that it makes producing our work at a quick rate, things like Intellisense make our work get produced at a much higher rate which is good for our return of investment.
• Testing by the developers has increased by 23%, we now take the time to actually test our product before we send it to our QA people.
• I am not aware of any negative ROI aspects to our company that have been found.

Incentivized